Removed by mod

I’d agree that it’s not. What about honey makes you feel like you need it or otherwise that it is somehow different than eating other animal products? If you use it just because you like it, you could argue the same for any other animal product. I’m primarily concerned with their lack of consent, in some cases the clipping of queen bee wings & confinement to a fixed space, & resource theft. There’s also the concerns of native bee populations being unable to compete with honey bees.

Go Vegan

May as well not considering willful complicity in their deaths is wrong.

Would need to go the a priori, teleological, or modal route - definitely no empirics to claim. I absolutely think objective morality can coexist with invented morals. As stated prior, the majority of morals likely are subjective, but it doesn’t follow to me that all of them are. I don’t think the idea that ‘using zyklon b to kill millions of innocent people is bad’ is an invention. I’m fine with the idea that people realized not through invention but discovery that, ‘yeah it is pretty fucked actually.’

I expect this response despite the indication of its issue. Were nazi’s morally rigtheous in gassing millions of innocent people to death because they believed so? At that time that was their ‘progress.’ Independent of other socities or yourself having any issue, it’s simply fine to say that because a nazi thinks it’s fine, it is fine?

I don’t think so, and I don’t think that injustice is dependant on my preference to view it that way. It just is wrong.

I too highly suspect most moral relativists are full of shit and don’t actually believe in it. Ya’ll don’t believe in moral progress? A society of chronic rapists is not inherently bad outside of your societies or personal preferences? The overwhelming majority of moral decisions being relative doesn’t discount that at least one very important concept can be capable of superceding our preferences.

I cannot for the life of me begin to understand who would still want to buy a kia. The company fucking cuts so many corners that inevitably cost the consumer, irrespective of the engine itself being completely unremarkable.

Have you eaten beans? I eat them on the regular and am a feces excreting machine

Go back to school. Arguments lead to logical conclusions. Your point is stupid. You are worried about framing in discourse far more than the argument. Just use that brain power of yours to reformat the argument minus the framing you don’t like. Such as, ‘if anything digestible is morally permissable to digest, that would include babies, which you probably wouldn’t morally permit, so perhaps you should find a more useful argument. Babies have meat too.’ There, that better? You shouldn’t eat animals (or 99.9999999% of them) because they are conscious - entailing varying degrees of thoughts, feelings, social dynamics, and the obvious capacity to suffer - many animals of which exhibit higher degrees of consciousness than a newborn human.

And jfc my dude you responded to the idea of babies being eaten with ‘besides, some people are cannibals.’ I didn’t strawman. You actually said that.

If you still can’t figure out how ‘my body can digest stuff so its a-okay to eat literally anything digestible’ is incredibly dumb even after I’ve told you where that logic leads then just don’t participate in discourse at all and we’ll help you get through life since you can’t do it on your own. Are you done with the intellectualy dishonest semantics or no?

My point is that our “body” is able to sustain itself on a diet that includes animal meat, out body has evolved to be able to process it. Including babies and dogs.

Your point is stupid and absolutely includes babies and dogs. You can digest those beings just fine.

Besides, while I don’t share their views, there are cultures where eating dogs or practicing cannibalism is common.

‘I’m not normalizing eating babies,’ proceeds to normalize eating babies

Why can your body digest new born babies and dogs? Why can your body sexually violate them? Dumb take. You dont derive ethics from what your body is physically capable of doing.

The non human animal thing is about the confusing attitudes & behaviors humans have towards them, and how they are unequally applied based on arbitrary traits or nebulous concepts. In other words, in consideration of those individuals who desire to not be used or exploited, why everyone currently exploiting them needs to consider changing those attitudes & behaviors.

Based.

Yes let all the Nazis racists eugenicists etcetera run wild because we don’t want to censor based on morality 🥺🥺

I mean I’m just saying, banning meat lobby shilling and boomer tier animal abuse memes is morally good. Would be pretty based mod. Idk. They can get shit on in the thread for sure but I wouldn’t mind not seeing the brain rot 🤷‍♂️

PETA takes any animal. So those no kill shelters that you probably love so much have to get rid of animals and send the animal to the next shelter in the chain. Eventually, that could mean PETA shelters. Guess what that means? The most aggressive animals, the most disabled animals, the most sick animals, the most expensive to take care of animals, and otherwise those least desired by those looking for companion animals, are likely to end up at a PETA shelter. They don’t have the funding, the staff, or the safety protocols in place to deal with the never ending supply that breeding creates. If you don’t want PETA to kill animals, which they don’t want to do, encourage the ban on animal breeding so there are fewer of these cases. Also stop pretending that your local no kill shelter is separate from that process. They just offload the bad press to PETA. Do not buy animals. Rescue & adopt.

Weird, I haven’t seen much of any Star Trek stuff.

Vegan here. I don’t know any conservative vegans, except for a single YouTuber. From an anti-oppression perspective, being on the right doesn’t really make sense for veganism. The right will perpetually define the needless taking of conscious life as personal choice as if the choice itself is morally relevant. Anyway, perhaps you live in an area with lots of repubs and neolibs?

It’s not exactly “the same thing” though. One encourages direct violence. Dr. Phil presumably does not. One component of exploitation being comparable is not the same as totally equal.